Croatia (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 22 March 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This article was copy edited by Folklore1, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 25, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Change in the Middle Ages section without valid arguments[edit]
Wikipedia user Miki Filigranski rejected my changes in the Middle Ages section based on the following claim: revert, good faith but badly edited with unreliable sources.
I disagree with that statement, I think my edits are good, based on credible sources, many of them in fact, and that I have posted accurate and historical information that has been verified and is widely known. I am asking the Wikipedia community to express their opinion and to reach a consensus on this issue. I believe that Croatian history in this period is incomplete and that a lot of historical facts are missing. If we want this Wikipedia article to be of high quality and provide detailed information to the readers, then we must add missing information about the history of Croatia that is important for understanding Croatian history.
Before making major edits please read WP:RS and other related editing policies on citation style, editing style and so on. Most of these and possibly even all of them cannot be considered as reliable because exist more credible and reliable, actual, historiographical sources. Other articles from Wikipedia aren't sources for citation, while Croatian Wikipedia is known for having low-average quality. Anyway, this kind of articles should have only an abstract, basic and most relevant information in their section, while those which scope is only history must have more information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I have carefully studied the Wikipedia rules and I believe that I have not violated any Wikipedia rules, not even the rule about credible sources. In my article, I did not use sources from Wikipedia, but sources from official Croatian national websites. I'm not interested in your general opinion about the Croatian Wikipedia and I don't see what it has to do with this article on the English Wikipedia. I believe that you do not have enough arguments for the claim that I did not use credible sources of information in my article, and I believe that my information is important for the article because it brings credible and accurate information to the article, which is incomplete without them. It was a summary that brings new information.
In addition, I believe that you are violating Wikipedia rules because you removed my text without starting a discussion here and without seeking consensus with other editors, which is against Wikipedia rules.
I ask that you return my text or else I will have to ask for the intervention of the administrator. 141.136.207.180 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p.s. Sorry admin, I forgot to log in. Can you delete duplicate reply?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I have carefully studied the Wikipedia rules and I believe that I have not violated any Wikipedia rules, not even the rule about credible sources. In my article, I did not use sources from Wikipedia, but sources from official Croatian national websites. I'm not interested in your general opinion about the Croatian Wikipedia and I don't see what it has to do with this article on the English Wikipedia. I believe that you do not have enough arguments for the claim that I did not use credible sources of information in my article, and I believe that my information is important for the article because it brings credible and accurate information to the article, which is incomplete without them. It was a summary that brings new information.
In addition, I believe that you are violating Wikipedia rules because you removed my text without starting a discussion here and without seeking consensus with other editors, which is against Wikipedia rules.
I ask that you return my text or else I will have to ask for the intervention of the administrator. DanielCro (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the Wikipedia article about Vjekoslav Klaić, I think I was very clear in the initial post that I was not talking about the Wikipedia article itself about the famous Croatian historian, but about external sources of information in that article, which also provide a lot of information about Croatian history. DanielCro (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how your comments show any sign you're familiar enough with Wikipedia's editing policies. You don't need to start a discussion & reach a consensus to make a revert, it is actually the opposite per Wikipedia rules, when your edit gets reverted you're the one to start a discussion & reach consensus (see also WP:BRD). Also, reverts need to be substantiated which was the case, otherwise doesn't count much especially if are WP:POINT reverts. It is not good to ignore experienced editor's remarks and continue to push your reverted edit by borderline threatening by calling an admin. These are sings of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior and not WP:GOODFAITH. However, admins don't intervene for such minor content disputes between editors. Vjekoslav Klaić article and external sources don't matter, and Klaić shouldn't be cited due to WP:AGEMATTERS. I will check again the content you edited and revalue whether it is suitable or not for the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THank you for such quick answer, first time I had to wait much longer :)
Ok, so I think this time I did everything right, isn't it?
This is the first time I've had my work removed from Wikipedia, so I didn't know all the steps I had to take, but I think now we finally have a good and reasoned discussion about it, and thank you for that. This is a good learning process for me too for some similar situations in the future.
Thank you for all info.
I had the feeling that my opinion and arguments were being ignored because there was no answer to my query here for a long time and it was certainly not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings or doubt anyone's good faith.
Why do you think it's a threat if I ask the admins a question or send a comment request so that other members of the Wikipedia community or admins can give their opinion on our dispute?
It seems to me that this is a normal process in working on Wikipedia and not something that should be considered an attack or a threat.
If I don't agree with your opinion and you don't agree with mine, how else will we come to a conclusion?
I think the external sources from Kljajic are very important to this discussion and I ask you to reconsider them and put my text back in the article.
I think that these are very important rulers for Croatian history and that this source, the Croatian encyclopedia, is a very reliable source and that this information should be left in this article.
Can we agree on that? I apologize if I hurt your feelings or if you perceived some of my words as a threat, that was not my intention and it was misunderstood.
However, I think this discussion is very good and can help increase the quality of this Wikipedia article. DanielCro (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DanielCro: None of these sources are reliable: 1) "Hrvatska povijest" (hupi.hr) is a self-published non-peer-reviewed website of a single author who most likely is not a historian, as I can't find any information on them elsewhere on the Internet. 2) WWW.HR mirrors content from now-dead website of "hr:Hrvatski informativni centar" (HIC), which seems to have been mainly a web portal and news aggregator, not a reliable source by itself. 3) "Hrvatska riječ" is a diaspora-orientied portal hosting synthesized texts composed from unknown sources, since they cite none. 4) Do I need to comment on this one at all? It's a poor-quality wiki hosted on Google Sites, you couldn't be further from reliable than this. 5) The linked article from Croatian Wikipedia has some interesting sources that might be reliable but need to be discussed separately. That said, I agree with @Miki Filigranski that this article on the whole country needs only the most relevant information, while additional information can be added to articles specifically about Croatian history (i.e. History of Croatia). -Vipz (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you for your opinion. What do you think about this sources?
I think that the Croatian encyclopedia, is a very reliable source, don't you think so?
Dukes Domagoj, Ljudevit Posavski and Trpimir are very important rulers in Croatian history and I think they should be included in an article about Croatian history, as very relevant and important. DanielCro (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think I've seen Croatian Encyclopedia being regarded as a reliable source, though I see you've opened a section about it on WP:RSN, so let's wait and see what others think about it. -Vipz (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, good idea, thank you. Let's Wikipedia community decide. I really feel that this content should be included in WP article about Croatia (because of relevance and importance) but sometimes is really difficult to find reliable source on Internet, as you probably understand. I'm tryng my best to improve quality of this article. THank you for your support DanielCro (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DanielCro, here we are dealing with three separate issues. First is reliability of sources. Second is relevancy of information to the WP:SCOPE of the article. Third is style. This was your revision and the section had several separate issues:
1) Vipz and I already responded you about the lack of reliability of those sources. There's no need to cite Croatian Encyclopedia, will use instead Neven Budak's "Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100" (2018).
2) There was no "Pannonian Croatia", it is an outdated term abandoned in modern historiography. Will add a sentence or two about Lower Pannonia principality because strangely there's no mention of it in current revision so will re-edit that paragraph; individually, current revision needs to mention in addition Ljudevit Posavski, and Trpimir (also due to native dynasty), but don't see much general notoriety for others for this article.
3) As said, problem with style and copy-editing. In your revision three rulers, each with one sentence made a separate WP:PARAGRAPH. It is pointless to have separate paragraphs for this kind of content and general style of article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for the reply. Honestly, I don't think there's really a need here for a big and endless debate over something that isn't really too complicated.
It seems to me that we agree on the basics, that this article is incomplete if information is not added about the first Croatian national rulers, dukes Ljudevit Posavski and Trpimir, and if you are ready to revise the article and add this information, regardless of the sources of information that will be use, that's fine with me and I think we can close this discussion.
Other details are less important at this point.
My wish is for this article to be of the highest quality and with as much relevant information as possible, and I am glad that through this discussion we have reached a common conclusion.
Since you are a more experienced Wikipedia contributor, I will leave it to you to edit the article as you think is best, because for ordinary Wikipedia readers, the most important thing is that they find the information they are looking for, and it is less important who added the information to the article, you or me.
I await your revision of the article.
As for the Croatian encyclopedia, let the question of the reliability of that source of information remain open and let the Wikipedia community decide. This decision will help future Wikipedia contributors in their work. DanielCro (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello. Just want to mention that it would be nice to put on the main page more national minorities then just one, just like Wikipedia of every other European country. 2A05:4F46:514:2800:C13F:FFCC:D1B0:72B7 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a 
Done